|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 24, 2013 13:56:06 GMT -5
Another part of gridless play that I am curious about is the adjudication of reach -- let's use 10ft reach as an example. This affects who might be hit with an attack, a full attack, maybe with a cleave attack, and attacks of opportunity (please forgive my 3.5e perspective and terminology). Here's a pic that shows a tall large creature's 10ft reach radius, both as a red circle (for gridless) and as a blue square (for gridded [reach ignores the diagonal measuring rule used for movement]). For some added perspective, token J's 5ft reach is also shown, as a yellow circle and a green square. How do experienced gridless DMs handle the partials like B and C? Also, are A, F, H and J out of reach? Attachments:
|
|
slurpy
Room Planner
Posts: 283
|
Post by slurpy on Feb 24, 2013 20:22:21 GMT -5
I would handle it the same way as I would area effects - if it touches, it counts. If there's a question of it touching, it counts. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but only a fool would not use a trick to minimize player argument, so this makes it just "consistency," and not "foolish."
(No argument about the little mind, though)
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Feb 24, 2013 22:55:23 GMT -5
I am of the mind in all gridless play that if it touches the base a hit is possible. The simpler the better. If you spend your time worrying if something is a small fraction of an inch off it becomes about the measurement and not the freedom. Just keep in mind that if you are lenient with the players that they must be lenient with the enemies.
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Feb 25, 2013 0:15:17 GMT -5
with gridless play you end up with more common instances of partial inches and other minute problems that really there is no need to be nit-picky about. so it makes sense to be less concerned about fractionals that amount to little or nothing in the end. BUT, for clarification on this question, I would say that if it falls within the circular template, even by a small amount, the strike hits. The reasoning is that a monster can "overextend" a small bit to reach that guy who is right on the border. Area effects are not as luck to be able to consciously over extend to hit someone skirting the edges.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 25, 2013 5:49:19 GMT -5
So touching is enough for a strike -- or any overlap is enough for a strike. Here is the pic again with J nudged closer. One diagonal away in gridworld. In the flanking thread, some said E would need a reach weapon to be flanking [E was one diagonal away in gridworld, as the nudged J is now]. This version shows that even a 5ft reach weapon should be enough for J to strike the demon. Attachments:
|
|
zonto
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 21
|
Post by zonto on Feb 25, 2013 10:12:00 GMT -5
I'd say to use a measuring stick that's 1" shorter than the creature's reach, and if it touches the base, it's within reach. For example, if a creature has 10' reach, I'd say it can hit any character who's base is 1" or less away from the creature.
I wouldn't use 2" because if you put that into a gridded ruleset, you're actually giving the creature an extra 5' of reach.
|
|
|
Post by danielc on Feb 25, 2013 11:02:51 GMT -5
I know I am about to be grumpy old man, but here it goes.
Either you are gridless and there is no such thing as "diagonal" or you are playing with a grid.
If a weapon reaches 10' then it reaches 10'. There is no worry about diagonal in a gridless world.
Same goes for movement etc. If you keep going back to the grid to reason out what is and is not, you are really playing with a grid.
[grumpy old man goes back to the rocker and sits down.]
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Feb 25, 2013 11:30:31 GMT -5
Well stated danielc. Master Scotty says, "forget all you have learned about the grid disciple", diagonals do not exist in a gridless world.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Feb 25, 2013 15:58:07 GMT -5
I'm trying to understand how you do it and the equivalences to the gridworld. I assumed that if you recommend something to others, you would be willing to discuss it without grumpiness. For example, if someone has a short sword, and therefore 5ft reach, do you require the token to (almost) touch the enemy, or do you judge it by a 1-inch radius? If someone has a glaive, do you account for the 1-inch non-reach zone immediately around him? In this pic, B and H have glaives. They threaten between 5 and 10 feet, but not between 0 and 5 feet. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by danielc on Feb 25, 2013 17:51:47 GMT -5
Ok, my being Grumpy was not ment to be taken serious. But my point is, I don't try and find equivalences to the gridworld. The whole point of my post was to say don't try. Rather I fall back on my wargame experience and run combat more like I did in that world. So reach: I would follow one of two paths, but only one of the two not mix them. Either I would measure 1" out from the base and allow attacks at that "reach" or shift to a base to base requirement and allow 10' reach weapons to hit at 1" out. Neither is "right" or "wrong" but each will have its posative and negative issues. On my table I follow the base touching for the 5' reach and the 1" out for the 10' reach. But I also follow the school of thought that we just don't worry too much about the "slight" differences. Just like we did when playing our wargames. Hope that helps clear my thoughts up.
|
|
argiope
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 138
|
Post by argiope on Feb 25, 2013 19:53:00 GMT -5
Again, I want to thank all of those who have made these great visual aids and asked pertinent questions concerning how to rule on play. If I am hearing correctly, H & B are on 5' bases so they can only hit objects between 1"-2" away, unable to hit anything <1" so the scorpion is free to attack B and H can hit the snaggle tooth creature in the center.
|
|
zonto
Cardboard Collector
Posts: 21
|
Post by zonto on Feb 26, 2013 11:19:24 GMT -5
In that diagram: The scorpion can hit B. Big monster can hit J (and maybe B - GM's call). B might be able to hit the big creature (GM call). Nobody else can hit anything.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyroma1969 on Feb 26, 2013 12:20:53 GMT -5
the way my players embraced gridless defined the answer to this question for me. The players were moving right up to the monster to attack, unless it was a ranged weapon. So I just made the bases for my monsters the size of their reach. Most monsters reach is based on their size, and not any special attack, such as a tongue or tentacle. I just treat those special attacks by the monster as a ranged weapon.
This way, if the player runs up to the monster base, he is within the reach of the monster attacks.
Later
|
|
argiope
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 138
|
Post by argiope on Feb 26, 2013 13:15:54 GMT -5
Anthonyroma1969, seems to me you are confusing the base size of the creature with its reach. A large creature with 10' reach would have a base that is 2" in diameter but if you include its reach it would be a 3" base. If you used a 3" base thereby including its reach you would be allowing the players to attack a monster beyond the reach of normal melee weapons.
If the players are using standard melee weapons they would have to move up to the edge of the monster's 2" base BUT before they got there the creature could hit them when they moved into the 1" space beyond the monster's base.
|
|
|
Post by dm1scotty on Feb 26, 2013 13:54:57 GMT -5
yep
|
|
spiralbound
Cardboard Collector
Avatar of the God(s) Random
Posts: 37
|
Post by spiralbound on Feb 26, 2013 20:21:17 GMT -5
Anthonyroma1969, seems to me you are confusing the base size of the creature with its reach. A large creature with 10' reach would have a base that is 2" in diameter but if you include its reach it would be a 3" base. If you used a 3" base thereby including its reach you would be allowing the players to attack a monster beyond the reach of normal melee weapons. If the players are using standard melee weapons they would have to move up to the edge of the monster's 2" base BUT before they got there the creature could hit them when they moved into the 1" space beyond the monster's base. This is completely correct and inspired an alternate approach Anthonyroma1969 could use: Leave the monster bases at their original sizes, but add a secondary base (made the thickness of cardstock instead of the usual base thickness) to denote the monster's reach. Thus, in the case of a large creature with a 10' reach, there would be a 2 inch "Size Base" with an underlying "Reach Base" extending out an extra 1 inch to correctly denote the reach of the monster. You could even make the Reach Base from a 3 inch circle of clear plastic and edge it with a permanent Sharpie. While on the one hand this sounds like it might be neat looking and quite useful to players whom are still getting adjusting to gridless play, it still feels like training wheels on a mini to me. LOL!
|
|
argiope
Paint Manipulator
Posts: 138
|
Post by argiope on Feb 26, 2013 20:25:15 GMT -5
I like the idea...my characters will be fighting some dragons and large creatures in the next phase of the game so i am going to experiment with Spiralbound's idea of halo of reach(C).
|
|
spiralbound
Cardboard Collector
Avatar of the God(s) Random
Posts: 37
|
Post by spiralbound on Feb 26, 2013 20:33:46 GMT -5
I like the idea...my characters will be fighting some dragons and large creatures in the next phase of the game so i am going to experiment with Spiralbound's idea of halo of reach(C). Cool! Post pics of the minis with their HoRs(c)...
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Mar 1, 2013 14:07:21 GMT -5
Ok, my being Grumpy was not ment to be taken serious. [...] So reach: I would follow one of two paths, but only one of the two not mix them. Either I would measure 1" out from the base and allow attacks at that "reach" or shift to a base to base requirement and allow 10' reach weapons to hit at 1" out. Neither is "right" or "wrong" but each will have its posative and negative issues. On my table I follow the base touching for the 5' reach and the 1" out for the 10' reach. But I also follow the school of thought that we just don't worry too much about the slight differences. Just like we did when playing our wargames. Hope that helps clear my thoughts up. It does, and thanks, and sorry I grumped out in my response. Your point about following one path is well taken. As DM Scotty said, consistency is key. For my perspective, I'm intrigued by gridless, but I have no wargaming experience to draw from. Your 5' reach = 0" and 10' reach = 1" is obvious an easy way to be consistent, and scales well with greater reaches. To spiralbound, More power to you in experimenting, but that underlying reach base may become annoying when the big creature wants to move on it's turn, and PC figures are standing on it.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Mar 1, 2013 14:14:29 GMT -5
Again, I want to thank all of those who have made these great visual aids and asked pertinent questions concerning how to rule on play. If I am hearing correctly, H & B are on 5' bases so they can only hit objects between 1"-2" away, unable to hit anything <1" so the scorpion is free to attack B and H can hit the snaggle tooth creature in the center. I'm glad you find the visuals useful. Your interpretation matches the grid-world view, but not (for example) DanielC's approach to gridless reach. Anthonyroma1969's comment about players moving right up to the monsters is a good reminder that gridless is supposed to lead to deeper immersion. I appreciate everyone's input thus far.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Mar 2, 2013 7:57:06 GMT -5
On my table I follow the base touching for the 5' reach and the 1'' out for the 10' reach. Do you measure range (bow, thrown dagger, etc.) as normal, or minus 1''?
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Mar 2, 2013 16:57:50 GMT -5
In war gaming, the rule of thumb is that a ranged weapon has it's range, and anything that it can see (using the perspective of the miniature usually...that is, hunker down and look at the target from the level your miniatures eye level) that is within that range is a possible target. concealment/cover is measured by an approximate measurement of what is a visual visual percentage of the target (erring on the side of the defending model and open to objection and subsequent judgement call if absolutely necessary).
So if a bow's range is 100 feet, that is 20 inches. If the target model is at least halfway into the 20 inches range, can be seen by the shooting model, and does not have cover, then it can be targeted and then hit pending a successful attack roll.
Likewise in war gaming, if a model does not touch the base, it can not make a melee attack. Most war games have larger bases for creatures who have larger reach ranges, but likewise the model can be struck easier too. That is a fair way of doing it, BUT, when translating to D&D it's a toss up about whether you want to have the base be the creature's reach (thus reducing the reach of certain monsters and also making the rules for reach less important and/or useful) OR you can measure the appropriate range for the reach as per the dictation of the weapon or attack. So if a spear has a 10 foot reach, then the model holding the spear threatens an inch away from it's base, while a model trying to attack the same spear wielding creature would have to touch it's base to attack (unless it too had a reach weapon).
So in that regard it's a matter of taste on whether to use war gaming rules or to rule in a way more consistent with D&D, both of which can be really simple (Although D&D's rules call for an extra step for reach weapons). It may seem fuzzy in some areas, but it's not as complicated as it sounds in either direction.
So, short answer to your question about range: Typically you would measure the actual range of the weapon (in inches), with perhaps a .5 inch flex in either direction
|
|
|
Post by onethatwas on Mar 2, 2013 16:59:15 GMT -5
War game rules are often generous and rely on a sort of code of honor between players, where neither one is too harsh on the other for distance rules. The idea is not to abuse that privilege, and things go fine.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfitz71 on Mar 2, 2013 19:12:18 GMT -5
Thanks, that's very informative.
|
|
|
Post by icewind1462 on Jun 6, 2013 16:25:31 GMT -5
So I myself am new to gridless when it comes to DnD, but as a 15 year veteran, part of being a DM is making judgement calls. If I were running this encounter I would treat it similar to a spell area affect. (not counting the grided square examples) I would declare that if a mini is in the red field it can be hit. Thus with the image presented - A;F;J; and H would NOT be struck by the beast. That's my two Coppers.
|
|